$1,500,000 More For Cream 



Here Are Bght Specific Citations To Show Wiiy Dlinois 

 Farmers Should Support Their Gum Producers Creameries 



^LBERT SANDQUIST, Ford 

 J ^ county Farm Bureau mem- 

 ^^^ I ber asks : 



"Perhaps competitors of our co-op- 

 eratives pay as much for our butterfat, 

 our livestock or our grain as our own 

 co-ops do, but what were they paying 

 before we went into business? And 

 what would they be offering now if we 

 weren't in business?" 



According to J. B. Countiss, sales 

 manager for Illinois Producers' Cream- 

 eries, "Butterfat prices in Illinois would 

 be three cents less than they are now 

 if cream producers were not operating 

 their own creameries." 



If Jack Countiss' answer is correct, 

 then Illinois butterfat producers, sell- 

 ing more than 50,000,000 pounds of 

 fat a year, are getting around $1,500,- 

 000 more for their product than they 

 would get were it not for the Co-op 

 creameries. 



But before we write Jack's statement 

 into our book of facts, let's examine 

 the evidence:— 



1. In 1924 a cream station operator 

 in Paxton, buying for a large creamery, 

 was offering 37 cents a pound for but- 

 terfat. Ninety score butter was selling 

 at 45 cents on the Chicago produce 

 market. 



One evening in 1924 a group of 

 butterfat producers met in Paxton with 

 A. D. Lynch, lAA director of dairy 

 marketing, to discuss plans for mar- 

 keting cream co-operatively. When 

 the meeting was over, the cream station 

 operator across the street had raised 

 his price three cents, offered 40 cents 

 a pound for fat. 



This was one of the first instances 

 of price increase resulting from far- 

 mers' efforts to market produce co- 

 operatively. Most amazing in this case 

 was the fact that cream producers had 

 not set up a co-op nor sold any of 

 their commodity. They had merely 

 discussed possibilities, yet, the local 

 butterfat price leaped three cents in as 

 many hours. 



2. From 1924, when the first cream 

 marketing pool was established in 

 Ford county, until 1931, 75 cream pools 



were established in the state. 



Early in the development of cream 

 pools, officials discovered that, for ef- 

 ficient operation, each one should have 

 a minimum of 250 members or enough 

 to supply 75,000 to 100,000 pounds of 

 butterfat annually. The 60 pools estab- 

 lished between 1929 and 1931 adhered 

 closely to this minimum requirement. 



When a pool had obtained enough 

 members to supply 100,000 pounds of 

 butterfat or more a year, the organiza- 

 tion's directors asked nearby creameries 

 to submit sealed bids for the butterfat 

 on a sliding price scale based on the 

 90 score Chicago butter price. The 

 highest bidder received the entire 

 amount. This procedure assured pa- 

 trons of the highest possible price for 

 a year. 



The rapid spread of the cooperative 

 cream marketing associations is evi- 

 dence that they were powerful levers 

 in jacking up local butterfat prices. 

 News of better butterfat prices spread. 

 More and more farmers learned the 

 story, moved to organize pools in their 

 home territory. 



3. Farmers seldom enjoy the privilege 

 of weighing and grading produce they 

 sell. Even when the state was fairly 

 well blanketed with cream marketing as- 



sociations, prior to 1930, butterfat buyers 

 weighed and graded the cream they 

 bought from cream pool members. 



But pool members could check the 

 accuracy of creamery weights or tests at 

 any time. Frank Gougler director of 

 the lAA produce marketing department 

 who was active in organization of co- 

 operative cream marketing associations, 

 was often asked by members to check the 

 correctness of weights and tests. 



Many times he found nothing wrong. 

 But his inspections too often revealed 

 that careless testing or faulty seals were 

 "nicking" pool members from a few 

 cents to nearly a dollar on every can of 

 cream they sold. 



In one case Gougler found that a 

 cream tester was not drying her equip- 

 ment thoroughly. The few drops of 

 water her pipette contained each time 

 she started a test was enough to lower the 

 test, cut nearly a dollar off the price of 

 each ten gallon can of cream. 



Other inspections revealed weight 

 shortages through the use of incorrect 

 balances and scales. Discoveries of this 

 nature led producer groups under lAA 

 leadership, to demand a marketing agree- 

 ment with all butter manufacturers 

 churning pool cream. Tliey wanted a 

 contract that would permit marketing 

 associations to sell their butterfat on 

 their own weights and tests. It was not 

 until 1930 that a uniform contract carry- 

 ing this provision was secured. 



4. What would butterfat bring in Illi- 

 nois were it not for farmers co-operative 

 creameries? Produce quotations from the 

 Quincy Herald-Whig of October 12, 

 1937, indicates the answer. Look it up. 



"Today's delivered price on eggs, but- 

 terfat and poultry for the vicinity of 

 Quincy as supplied the Herald-Whig by 

 produce houses in this territory, follows: 



"Monroe City, Missouri — Butterfat, 

 34c a pound for No. 1 ; 32c for No. 2 ; 



tttnnnnnt 



PRODLJCEHS CREAMFRI 

 of CAlf-BUHr. 



"LaBelle, Missouri — Butterfat, 32c 

 a pound for No. 1 ; 30c for No. 2." 



On that day, 90 score butter was sel- 

 ling for 34 cents a pound on the Chi- 

 cago produce exchange. 



On that day, too, Illinois producers 



28 



L A. A. RECORD 



